Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Final Rejection of 12/10/2025, Applicant, on 3/10/2026, amended claims 1 and 19-20; cancelled claim 13. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed March 10, 2026.
On Pg. 11 of the Remarks regarding the 35 USC § 112b rejection, Examiner has withdrawn the rejection based on the amended claim language. The sensor technology is being used to collect an abundant amount of “interaction data” (i.e. location, chore completion, general encounters, etc.) Applicants claim use said interaction data to provide an alert.
On Pg. 12-13 of the Remarks regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application similar to Example 46 of the USPTO Guidance. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 and Claim 3 disclosed in Example 46 of the USPTO Guidance goes beyond merely automating the abstract ideas and instead actually uses the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action by Limitation (d) specifies that the monitoring component automatically sends a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with the feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany. Thus, limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting
an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser(claim 2) and operating the gate and routing the animals in a particular way (claim 3). These limitations integrate the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. In contrast, the present claims output an alert notification. And lack meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Applicant has highlighted upon identifying one or more encounters between
the user and the one or more group of animals, identify the user as one or more
potential vectors for disease based on the one or more encounters indicating the
user contacted the one or more groups of animals in one or more locations; upon
identifying the user as one or more potential vectors for disease, identify one or
more animals susceptible to a disease outbreak based on the user having
encountered the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak after
encountering animals at a location of a disease outbreak; and upon identifying the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak, generate one or more alerts to alert the user identified as the one or more potential vectors for disease and to identify the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak," In response 1) Identifying potential vectors (which is data) to 2) alert a disease outbreak are both included in the abstract idea of the mental processes -evaluation and methods of organizing human activity- managing behavior. Examiner finds using the encounter information to take corrective action by
alerting users identified as potential disease vectors and identifying susceptible animals is an abstract idea.
On Pg. 14-15 of the Remarks regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims recite a specific technical solution in which the configuration enables the system to then identify disease vectors and susceptible animals based on verified encounters, which is a capability that would not be possible with generic location tracking alone. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The “barn node; “barn hub”; “devices”, “user device”; “server”; “processor”; “memory” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component.
On Pg. 16-17 of the Remarks regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection, Applicant states the step 2B analysis amounts to significantly more and in the 2A Prong I analysis is the characterization of the abstract idea is overbroad. In response, Examiner asserts when performing the § 101 analysis, Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation, both individually and in combination as according to the PTO's guidelines for § 101 eligibility. Regarding Example 46 Claim 4 eligibility. This claim does not recite an abstract idea and lists technical components which is why it is eligible . In contrast, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea. Please see updated analysis below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and 8-12 and 14-20 are directed to activity validation.
Claim 1 recites a system for activity validation, Claim 19 recites a system for activity validation and Claim 20 recites a method for activity validation, which include receiving one or more chore completion inputs indicative of a completion of one or more chores of a list of chores; identify at least a first interaction between at a first time and at least a second interaction at a second time subsequent to the first time, wherein at least one of the first interaction or the second interaction includes one or more physical tactile interactions or one or more scanning QR code interactions; identify a spatial relationship within a region to determine a location of the user device, the region including at least one of the barn or one or more locations positioned outside the barn; receive identified first interaction data associated with the identified first interaction to refine the determined location of the user device during the identified spatial relationship based on the fixed known location of the barn node; receive identified second interaction data associated with the second interaction from the barn node to determine a length of interaction; and receive the one or more chore completion inputs; display the list of chores based on the location of the user device; and receive one or more signals from the barn hub, the one or more signals including the one or more chore completion inputs, the identified first interaction data, the identified second interaction data, and identified spatial relationship data associated with the identified spatial relationship; store a transaction log in the memory, the transaction log including the chore completion inputs, the identified first interaction data, the identified second interaction data, and the spatial relationship data; validate the one or more chore completion inputs by comparing the location of the user device to a chore completion location, wherein the one or more chore completion inputs are valid when the location of the user device matches the chore completion location; identify one or more incomplete chores of the list of chores based on at least one of the one or more chore completion inputs validated, the determined length of interaction, and the identified spatial relationship data; identify, based on the identified spatial relationship data and at least one of the identified first interaction data or the identified second interaction data from the barn hub, one or more encounters between the user and one or more groups of animals, wherein the identify the one or more encounters between the user and the one or more group of animals includes determining the user came into contact with the one or more group of animals based on the fixed known location of the barn node and at least one of the identified first interaction data or the identified second interaction data from the barn hub; upon identifying one or more encounters between the user and the one or more group of animals, the user as one or more potential vectors for disease based on the one or more encounters indicating the user contacted the one or more groups of animals in one or more locations; upon identifying the user as one or more potential vectors for disease, identify one or more animals susceptible to a disease outbreak based on the user having encountered the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak after encountering animals at a location of a disease outbreak; and
upon identifying the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak, generate one or more alerts to alert the user identified as the one or more potential vectors for disease and to identify the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Mental Processes”- evaluation and “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” – managing personal behavior. The recitation of “barn node; “barn hub”; “devices”, “user device”; “server”; “processor”; “memory” provide nothing in the claim elements to preclude the step from being “Methods of Organizing Human Activity”- managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The “barn node; “barn hub”; “devices”, “user device”; “server”; “processor”; “memory” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the “QR code scanner”, “capacitive touch sensor”, “a resistive touch sensor”, or a “biometric sensor” is M2106.05(h)- field of use . Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in customer sentiment analysis.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “barn node; “barn hub”; “devices”, “user device”; “server”; “processor”; “memory” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With regards to the “sensor” and step 2B- it is M2106.05(h)- field of use.
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2-5, and 8-12 and 14-18 recite identify one or more complete chores of the list of chores based on at least one of the chore completion inputs, the determined length of interaction, and the identified spatial relationship data; determining the one or more chore completion inputs were received by the user device during a time interval of the spatial relationship; determining the one or more chore completion inputs were not received by the user device during a time interval of the spatial relationship; identify a positive transaction when each chore of the list of chores has been identified as complete; and identify a negative transaction when at least one chore of the list of chores has been identified as incomplete; display one or more alerts indicative of the one or more identified incomplete chores; receive one or more mortality inputs from the user; identify one or more disease outbreaks based on the one or more mortality inputs.; identify one or more individuals as potential vectors for spread of disease based on the one more mortality inputs; identify one or more groups of animals as being at risk for a disease outbreak based on the one or more mortality inputs; acquire sensor readings, the one or more sensors including at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, a composition sensor, or a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor; receive the sensor readings from the barn node and transmit the sensor readings; receive, one or more images acquired by one or more imaging devices of the barn node; and identify one or more characteristics of a group of animals based on the one or more images; identifying one or more characteristics of a group of animals comprises :generating a machine learning classifier; and identifying the one or more characteristics of the group of animals with the machine learning classifier; store the transaction log to a blockchain; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claims 1, 19 and 20. Regarding Claims 3-5, 8-12 and 14-18 and the additional elements of “processor”; “user device”; “controller”; “user interface”; “barn hub”; “barn node”; “sensor” ; “devices” it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Regarding claim 17 and the additional element of machine learning model - the specification discloses the machine learning at a high-level of generality, providing examples of different techniques that may be applied. The general use of a machine learning technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, currently, the machine learning is solely used a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Regarding claim 18 and the additional element of “blockchain”- it is a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed Claims 1- 5 and 8-12 and 14-20 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
In regards to Claim 1 (similarly Claim 19 and Claim 20), the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest:
“… validate the one or more chore completion inputs by comparing the location of the user device to a chore completion location, wherein the one or more chore completion inputs are valid when the location of the user device matches the chore completion location; identify one or more incomplete chores of the list of chores based on at least one of the one or more chore completion inputs validated, the determined length of interaction, and the identified spatial relationship data; identify, based on the identified spatial relationship data and at least one of the identified first interaction data or the identified second interaction data from the barn hub, one or more encounters between the user and one or more groups of animals, wherein the identify the one or more encounters between the user and the one or more group of animals includes determining the user came into contact with the one or more group of animals based on the fixed known location of the barn node and at least one of the identified first interaction data or the identified second interaction data from the barn hub; upon identifying one or more encounters between the user and the one or more group of animals, identify one or more potential vectors for disease; upon identifying one or more encounters between the user and the one or more group of animals, identify one or more animals susceptible to a disease outbreak; and upon identifying the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak, generate one or more alerts to alert the user of the one or more potential vectors for disease and the one or more animals susceptible to the disease outbreak.”.
Examiner finds that Vollmar et al., US Publication No. 20160147962 A2 teaches for automatically recording agricultural treatments includes: monitoring a user device parameter of a user device for a trigger event S100; initiating sensor measurement recordation in response to occurrence of the trigger event S200; recording a set of sensor measurements over a treatment time period S300; identifying the past agricultural treatment based on the sensor measurements S400; and generating a record of the past agricultural treatment S500. The method functions to enable automated identification of prior agriculture treatments for farmers (e.g., automatically track treatments applied to the respective crops or field, with little or no farmer input), but can alternatively or additionally be used to automatically populate a crop plan (e.g., populate a schedule for the field with past treatments,... (see par. 0022-0023). In particular, Vollmar discloses include a monitoring module that functions to monitor for the occurrence of a trigger event. The trigger event can be: user device proximity to a predefined geofence (e.g., a geofence associated with the user account associated with the user device, alternatively any other geofence, example shown in FIG. 7), user device power provision (e.g., determination of power provision to the user device, such as by turning on the agricultural equipment to which the user device is connected), or be any other suitable event indicative of agricultural treatment of a field. (see par. 0036-0038).
Ashley Jr et al., US Publication No. 20170188199 A1 teaches a system and method that provides a location-based service to an operator of a facility. In one form, the facility is a physically defined structure formed by physical walls. The facility includes a series of location nodes, the location nodes including transceivers of wireless signals, and being for transmitting the signals received to a central hub for processing the received signals. The nodes are located in spaced apart positions in the facility. The nodes are for wireless communication with movable entities in the facility thereby to establish the location and movement of entities in the facility, the entities having wireless communicating units for transmitting signals wirelessly to the nodes The nodes provide data about the movement of the entities in the facility, and such data includes at least one of entry into the facility, departure from the facility, amount of time spent in the vicinity of nodes located in the spaced apart positions; the travel path of the entities in the facility. Par. 202 –“The most practically near node is defined as the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity. For example, a wireless communication device located on the second floor of a multi-story building may be closest to a location node located on the ceiling of the first floor, and may be next closest to a location node located on the second floor. Although the location node on the first floor is actually closer in distance to the movable entity than the location node on the second floor, since the location node on the first floor is not easily accessible to the movable entity located on the second floor, the location node on the second floor will be considered the most practically near node to the movable entity. (see par. 0062-0064).
Beckham et al., US Publication No. 20180218057 A1 teaches (a) tracking animal movements and helping manage their animal health on a day-to-day basis, (b) monitor disease statuses across the producer's facilities and enable the producer to see how statuses change over time, (c) integrate diagnostic testing data from multiple laboratories or veterinarians in a single software solution, (d) allow a global view of the producer's operations where they can monitor all sites or a localized view where they can review the full history of a specific site, (e) provide a means to prove disease freedom during an outbreak, allowing for them to return to business operations sooner, and (f) integrate production level data with diagnostic testing data, and allow for the analysis of potential correlations and impacts between the two.”(See Par. 0041) The system can provide a passive surveillance capability that provides varying levels of functionality depending on the type of user, group membership for the user, or previously agreed upon conditions associated with the user. The functionality can be compartmentalized depending on the type of user to provide the appropriate amount of benefit to that user while respecting privacy concerns of, for example, business owners or production managers who own or manage the animals. In certain emergency situations, functionality can be combined across user type groups to assist in appropriate incident management decision making, while still protecting confidential or sensitive business data (See Par. 47-48).
Han et al., US Patent No. 10058076 B2 teaches An infectious disease monitoring system comprising: an imaging device capturing and transmitting image data on animals managed in a barn; a first server comprising an animal image detecting unit detecting at least one animal object from the image data, and determining whether an animal suspected of having an infectious disease is detected from the image data received from the imaging device, and, when the animal suspected of having the infectious disease is detected, transmitting a suspected symptom occurrence signal along with the image data of the subject suspected of having the infectious disease, wherein the animal image detecting unit compares an outline of objects in the image data with pre-stored data to detect the at least one animal object; wherein the first server comprises: a candidate object extracting unit tracking the at least one animal object, and extracting at least one candidate animal object having a predetermined behavior pattern of the infectious disease among the at least one animal object; an animal suspected of having the infectious disease extracting unit determining whether the image data of an outward appearance of the at least one candidate object is matched with an external lesion of the infectious disease and extracting the animal suspected of having the infectious disease from the at least one candidate animal object; and a suspected symptom occurrence signal generating unit generating the suspected symptom occurrence signal including the image data on the animal suspected of having the infectious disease when the animal suspected of having the infectious disease is extracted; a second server confirming an occurrence of the infectious disease by analyzing the image data of the animal suspected of having the infectious disease upon receipt of the suspected symptom occurrence signal from the first server, and transmitting a warning signal when confirmed the occurrence of the infectious disease (Claim 1).
Although Vollmar, Ashley Jr., Beckman and Han teach the monitoring elements of the claim, none of the cited prior art, singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest, the combination of, the chore analysis, monitoring analysis and alerting for disease outbreak.
The dependent claims 2-5 and 8-12 and 14-18 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 because they depend on claim 1 that is determined to be eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Publication No. US 20090313215 A1 to Maizel et al..- Abstract-“ Computer configurations, search processors (2), software, and methods of viewing and analyzing information regarding agriculture or land use automatically located relationally-linked agronomic entities with both real (18) and virtual (8) displays. Relational linking exist through broad assessment of commonality information with fuzzy logic heuristics. Dynamic link presentation (6) can exist with congregated and hierarchical information displays (29) such as at the farm level, at a location level, at a physically aggregated parcel level with hierarchical display of farms or agronomic entity ownership, management, organization, and crop usages that afford users an unprecedented series of views into the businesses of land use, food production, and resource conservation. A meta-syntactic agronomic information generator (31) can facilitate imputed information through the integration of multiple databases (32). Predictive and application-specific configurations can allow at-a-glance understanding of agronomic organizations and agronomic decision-making to see where to most optimally devote resources for higher success or efficiency.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights